See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: CERN Rap (Particle Collider Mix)
Source:
Vimeo
URL Source: http://www.vimeo.com/1431471
Published: Jul 30, 2008
Author: Will Barras
Post Date: 2008-08-03 22:24:57 by buckeye
Keywords: None
Views: 584
Comments: 41
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-1) not displayed.
.
.
.
#2. To: Dakmar, Artisan (#0)
The LHC is super dupa fly (check it).
Conservation of energy is my favorite. Penrose claims the universe recycles itself but it goes through phase of complete erasure of the past. He also claims that in the erasure the universe passes through a massless form where time becomes meaningless. Time has multiple beginnings in his view, as I see it, that makes time multidimensional I suppose, but frankly his timelessness concept appears to me to be most likely agenda-driven. He is apparently talking about a phase continuous in a line with low-energy-density (heat death), so why the alleged universal massless energy phase would not be occupied by particles moving light-speed and thus marking time is not appreciated here. Still it suggests the universe has always been around, and I don't see where Penrose can rule out infinite energy.
if that thing breaks, you can just get the spare parts down at radio shack.
Many believe in either intelligent design or evolution...but I am opting for unintelligent design, where god is a retarded kid who likes setting army men on fire and leaving his toys out in the rain. Gengis Gandhi, Troubled Genius We come from the land of the ice and snow, On we sweep with threshing oar, Our only goal will be the western shore.
People ask "Where's all the antimatter?" For one thing, the universe has been around forever. This means if any antimattter out there hasn't collided with matter yet, it's probably not going to collide with it tomorrow either. Some of it got away, it was no big thing, same ole same ole. It doesn't all come at once in one universal energy decay event, the universe is too big for that, there's no limit to the universe, it's infinite with infinite energy. Energy is always conserved that way.
It's simply impossible to overestimate the universe.
In what sense are you thinking of overestimates?
If you get one of those things going fast enough it can create a black hole. Where would we be then? We had some good times And they write innumerable books; being too vain and distracted for silence: seeking every one after his own elevation, and dodging his emptiness. - T. S. Eliot
Simply? :)
And they write innumerable books; being too vain and distracted for silence: seeking every one after his own elevation, and dodging his emptiness. - T. S. Eliot
How long has the universe existed? How long, to the best of your knowledge, has plutonium existed? See a pattern here? Of course not, that was a leading question. I seen on TV show some of top nucular science wizards in manhattan were worried that a a u-bomb might actually set fire to the atmosphere. Boy that would suck, eh?
And they write innumerable books; being too vain and distracted for silence: seeking every one after his own elevation, and dodging his emptiness. - T. S. Eliot
Good point. It should be: Simply put, it's impossible to overestimate the universe.
LOL. I 'figured' all this out once I decided gravity has a static or standing wavelength relative to its source and the waves have both negative (antigravity) and positive phases. I'll call it 'bipolar' quantum gravity. Seems there could be different wavelengths of gravity too. The basic bipolar gravity wave idea could explain at least some dark energy and dark matter, I suppose. Anti-matter has much to do with the Dirac sea, where the surface is empty space. If the sea is regular I suppose the probed surface must have some of the event qualities of a space lattice made of particles and their anti-particle twins. Maybe space is like a matter-antimatter checkerboard, and matter is like a white-square bishop. If so, maybe dark matter and energy come from anti- matter. This further suggests that maybe gravity from antimatter starts out in opposite phase relative to matter's gravity, which for example would cause gravitational repulsion between matter and antimatter when both gravities predominate and are positioned within the relevant gravitational wavelengths, as with sufficiently large paired masses of the two forms.
I've always thought of matter/antimatter as almost godlike magnets, fiercely quarrelsome and unwilling to meet. It's no wonder most people prefer to worship the relatively weak magnet.
And they write innumerable books; being too vain and distracted for silence: seeking every one after his own elevation, and dodging his emptiness. - T. S. Eliot
The idea lends itself to that sort of visualization where bodies of both type interact gravitationally in a bipolar way, just like with magnetic N and S. There's also a slight suggestion within the idea, along that vein, to suppose the cutoff of minimum gravity wavelength is the maximum electromagnetic wavelength, where the force particle energy is large enough to have its own significant gravitational interaction with space, as a separate gravitational entity. Perhaps thus electromagnetic force particle phase is not of the static or standing variety except for gravitationally, relative to the particle. The electromagnetic particle is I suppose skating over the Dirac sea, not pushing (probing) into it, up to a further energy threshold, where it begins to behave as a spinning charged matter-antimatter pair, apparently by the way it interacts with the Dirac sea.
Paul Dirac, according to Wiki.
But I still get to visualize Earth as an electron in a giant helium atom, right?
And they write innumerable books; being too vain and distracted for silence: seeking every one after his own elevation, and dodging his emptiness. - T. S. Eliot
Right, a tiny universe.
But they're all bold as love.
Just Ask the Axis!
And they write innumerable books; being too vain and distracted for silence: seeking every one after his own elevation, and dodging his emptiness. - T. S. Eliot
One love, broah.
Penrose claims the mind is non-algorithmic. Brain damage is non-algorithmic. The processes of novelty filtering and logical investigation ... I don't know if they're fairly describable as non-algorithmic, although that which fate permits such processes to consider is another thing.
Then Penrose's view would tend to dispute Kurzweil's materialist singularity.
I completely missed that question until now. I mean in the amount of energy it has and in its size. That which is observable is apparently only a sub-universe. It seems to be limited only by physical laws, but even those laws could be different in other sub-universes.
When matter and antimatter particles have opposite charges they attract electrostatically, but when either has no charge apparent to the other I suppose (for the sake of this theory) they only gravitationally repel. This is one way of thinking about how a proton can produce a positron and a neutron, and how antimatter and matter can seemingly be mixed together in one particle. Here's something more conventional, the source is easy to look up: Why is mass of neutron greater than mass of proton? This is a very complicated question with no simple "hand-waving" answer. In energy units (using E = mc^2), the masses are: Proton: 938.272 MeV, neutron: 939.566 MeV, mass difference = 1.293 MeV, electron: 0.511 Mev. It is tempting to say that a neutron consists of a proton plus an electron; the mass of the electron would make up 40% of the mass difference. This argument is totally invalid. It would be equally valid to say that a proton consists of a neutron plus a positron (a positron has exactly the same mass as an electron, but is positively charged). The validity of using this argument in both directions is strengthened by the fact that neutrons in neutron rich nuclei beta decay into an electron and a neutrino while protons in proton rich nuclei beta decay into a positron and a neutrino. For example a N13 (nitrogen 13) nucleus decays into C13 (carbon 13), a positron, and a neutrino with the release of 2.221 MeV. The charge of the proton adds some electromagnetic energy to the proton mass, but the magnitude of that effect is not only impossible to calculate, but works in the wrong direction. Quarks give the best chance to explain the proton-neutron mass difference by "hand-waving". A proton consists (mainly) of two up quarks and one down quark. A neutron consists (mainly) of one up quark and two down quarks. Current estimates are that the up quark has a mass in the range 2-8 Mev and the down quark 5-15 MeV. So replacing one up quark in the proton by a down quark would increase the mass by something between -3 MeV and +13 MeV. Clearly this is not a precise calculation, but it is (mostly) in the right direction and could overcome the electromagnetic contribution and produce the correct answer. There are other known contributions to these masses including interactions with the weak and strong interactions, but this is probably already more than you want to know about this subject!
Seems plausible. I doubt if the laws are different, but very likely our known laws would have to be expanded to explain the differences in phenomena.
I don't know about any differences. Particle physicists don't have much of an opinion on gravity and on uniting gravity with the other forces. A proton and neutron can still have three quarks each with some of them being matter quarks and others being antimatter quarks. The strong and weak forces can be manifestations of gravity and electromagnetism at short scales, and electromagnetism could be a manifestation of gravity and anti-gravity, but particle physicists generally do not concern themselves with such ideas.
Most of this is lost on me, but I really enjoyed discovering the poetic Dirac sea concept on this thread, even if its implications sail over my head.
Okay, I re-read that comment and I see where I may have misunderstood you. These different laws are supposedly different ways of cooling from extreme conditions of energy density. My theory doesn't have anything to say about that, I brought it up because it's another theory out there that makes the observable universe (sub-universe) a smaller part of the absolute universe.
Dirac used mathematics to realize anti-matter and important particles that hadn't yet been found.
Excellent.
Dirac sea From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search The Dirac sea is a theoretical model of the vacuum as an infinite sea of particles possessing negative energy. It was invented by the British physicist Paul Dirac in 1930 to explain the anomalous negative-energy quantum states predicted by the Dirac equation for relativistic electrons. The positron, the antimatter counterpart of the electron, was originally conceived of as a hole in the Dirac sea, well before its experimental discovery in 1932. Dirac, Einstein and others recognised that it is related to the 'metaphysical' aether [1]: ... with the new theory of electrodynamics we are rather forced to have an aether. - P.A.M. Dirac, ‘Is There An Aether?,’ Nature, v.168, 1951, p.906.
The Dirac sea is a theoretical model of the vacuum as an infinite sea of particles possessing negative energy. So we have nothingness as a sea of matter annihilations by antimatter (antimatter with negative energy, just like anti-gravity), but these annihilations are waiting to be, for now missing in action. Since equal negative and positive energy cancel we can have as much of both as desired in empty space, as long as there is an additional bias to negative energy, so possibly empty intergalactic space can be seen as being slightly predominated with antimatter or antigravity.
Picture bears reposting, perhaps: Hoag's ring looked so much like a diffraction ring in lower resolution. Coincidentally enough I suppose the center is a coherent gravity source, hence the obvious (heh) anti-gravity ring "focus" effect. As noted before, that's a little red Einstein ring inside the Hoag ring, at about 1 o'clock. I've suggested Hoag's ring-center mutual antigravity phase (in the dark region inside Hoag's ring) is what is doing some lensing for the (alleged) Einstein ring seen through there too. In that region, a rare exception of sorts it seems, negative energy more than slightly predominates, I suppose. Maybe as a result of a negative energy effect on light passing through it, the Einstein ring is magnified. That's an effect that would be opposite to the effect of conventional gravity lensing. It's apparently somewhat evenly distributed over the object lensed, only slightly inhomogenous (only slightly axial) which is too complicated for me to explain at the moment, but I have some ideas, like a mixture of gravity effects and complementary antigravity effects. Anyway, the effect is apparently generated from the periphery of the line of sight rather than the center at the Einstein ring lensing object's location. The Einstein ring is rather spread-out and stretched along a radial of Hoag's ring, to my eye, anyway. A lesser amount of conventional opposing gravity running cross-radially is apparently what makes the Einstein ring magnified almost as wide. I see the dark region between Hoag's ring and center as a convex gravity lens, shaped much like a flattened donut. The region of that shape of lens transmitting the Einstein ring image has positive curvature in all directions, it's not behaving much different from a magnifying glass there. The entire antigravity-phase region is spherical, but much weaker at much distance outside Hoag's ring plane, where the ring doesn't reinforce it. That's how I see it, anyway.
Now that I think of it, the conventional gravity lens is the convex lens, so the negative lens supposedly created by Hoag's ring and center-spot should be concave. That is also the way I described it about a year ago. What I hypothesized back then was the two complementary lensing actions have an effect similar to a achromatic doublet, and so the red Einstein ring is basically the same color as the red lensing object in the middle of the Einstein ring that forms the ring, whereas typically the ring color is bluer. There's a larger picture of both rings here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Hoag's_object.jpg It seems there are some comparatively smaller objects right in front of the red Einstein ring and these objects disrupt the ring image portions nearby, which gives each of these objects, visually superimposed over the Einstein ring, a tiny dark halo.
There's a lot of resistance to the idea of antimatter having antigravity. The antimatter gravity debate When antimatter was first discovered in 1932, physicists wondered about how it would react to gravity. Initial analysis focused on whether antimatter should react the same as matter or react oppositely. Several theoretical arguments arose which convinced physicists that antimatter would react exactly the same as normal matter. They inferred that a gravitational repulsion between matter and antimatter was implausible as it would violate CPT invariance, conservation of energy, result in vacuum instability, and result in CP violation. It was also theorized that it would be inconsistent with the results of the Eötvös test of the weak equivalence principle. Many of these early theoretical objections were later overturned.[3] [edit] Morrison's Argument In 1958, Philip Morrison argued that antigravity would violate conservation of energy. If matter and antimatter responded oppositely to a gravitational field, then it would take no energy to change the height of a particle-antiparticle pair. However, when moving through a gravitational potential, the frequency and energy of light is shifted. Morrison argued that energy would be created by producing matter and antimatter at one height and then annihilating it higher up, since the photons used in production would have less energy then the photons yielded from annihilation.[4] However, it was later found that antigravity would still not violate the second law of thermodynamics.[5] [edit] The equivalence principle If one can invent a theory in which matter and antimatter repel one another, what does it predict for things which are neither matter nor antimatter? Photons are their own antiparticles, and in all respects behave exactly symmetrically with respect to matter and antimatter particles. In a large number of laboratory and astronomical tests, (gravitational redshift and gravitational lensing, for example) photons are observed to be attracted to matter, exactly in accordance with the theory of General Relativity. It is possible to find atoms and nuclei whose elementary particle contents are the same, but whose masses are different. For example, Helium-4 weighs less than 2 atoms of deuterium due to binding energy differences. The gravitational force constant is observed to be the same, up to the limits of experimental precision, for all such different materials, suggesting that "binding energy"— which, like the photon, has no distinction between matter and antimatter— experiences the same gravitational forces as matter. This is again in accordance with the theory of General Relativity, and difficult to reconcile with any theory predicting that matter and antimatter repel. [edit] Schiff's argument Later in 1958, L. Schiff used quantum field theory to argue that antigravity would be inconsistent with the results of the Eötvös experiment.[6] However, the renormalization technique used in Schiff's analysis is heavily criticized, and his work is seen as inconclusive.[3] [edit] Good's argument In 1961, Myron Good argued that antigravity would result in the observation of an unacceptably high amount of CP violation in the anomalous regeneration of Kaons.[7] At the time, CP violation had not yet been observed. However, Good's argument is criticized for being expressed in terms of absolute potentials. By rephrasing the argument in terms of relative potentials, Gabriel Chardin found that it resulted in an amount of Kaon regeneration which agrees with observation.[8] He argues that antigravity is in fact a potential explanation for CP violation.
I can look at this object and suppose the center or ring is antimatter or matter and the difference apparently mostly involves changing the relevant dominant bipolar gravity wavelength. Add a half-wavelength to the distance from matter and the matter's gravitational effect becomes that of distant antimatter, in one variation of a bipolar gravity theory.
This part of what I quoted is the most interesting part to me at the moment: "The gravitational force constant is observed to be the same, up to the limits of experimental precision, for all such different materials, suggesting that "binding energy"— which, like the photon, has no distinction between matter and antimatter— experiences the same gravitational forces as matter. This is again in accordance with the theory of General Relativity, and difficult to reconcile with any theory predicting that matter and antimatter repel." We can say the photon is half matter and half-antimatter and the binding energy has a photonic equivalent, which I think perhaps obviates this question. "Matter" itself is not pure matter, it's partly antimatter. These concepts are not easy for most people to juggle.
I can't make the "antimatter has antigravity" idea work easily. The motivation is that when you collide a massive hadron with its anti-twin you can get nothing but photons and vice-versa. Each half produces the same thing. Morrison's argument is appealing. I mean why should gravity attract something that is 1/2 matter and 1/2 antimatter if it is supposed to have zero relativistic mass here? I guess the acceleration-deceleration energy required to reattain zero relativistic mass (or at least zero kinetic energy) at a further distance is the thermo 2nd-law problem with the conservation violation alleged by Morrison. All the mesons and bosons are 1/2 matter and 1/2 antimatter, I think, but they can have zero (massless bosons) or non-zero rest mass (mesons, composite bosons). I've often suggested that orbiting photons should have a rest mass, and that's what seems to complicate things for me when trying to rule out antimatter antigravity. Photons are bosons (force carriers), of course. Light evidently doesn't distinguish between matter and antimatter. The photon is supposedly its own antiparticle, which fits in with it being 50/50 matter-antimatter. The hadrons are mostly quarks though (3 of them), and they're either all matter or all antimatter. I want to look at each quark as 1/2 matter and antimatter, to build them out of bosons that gyrate such that the matter part is either exposed or covered.
I'm not following, but I've been focusing more on global paradigm shifts than on the singularity lately. I think I'm developing an anti-singularity reflex. Anyway, I think the brain exploits quantum randomness and classical randomness and it ends up being significantly controlled by unpredictable circumstances, but meeting goals and satisfying needs is generally algorithmic.
whatever you say, hoss:
And they write innumerable books; being too vain and distracted for silence: seeking every one after his own elevation, and dodging his emptiness. - T. S. Eliot
Here's the one I can't get past now: "The equivalence principle - If one can invent a theory in which matter and antimatter repel one another, what does it predict for things which are neither matter nor antimatter? Photons are their own antiparticles, and in all respects behave exactly symmetrically with respect to matter and antimatter particles. In a large number of laboratory and astronomical tests, (gravitational redshift and gravitational lensing, for example) photons are observed to be attracted to matter, exactly in accordance with the theory of General Relativity. It is possible to find atoms and nuclei whose elementary particle contents are the same, but whose masses are different. For example, Helium-4 weighs less than 2 atoms of deuterium due to binding energy differences. The gravitational force constant is observed to be the same, up to the limits of experimental precision, for all such different materials, suggesting that "binding energy"— which, like the photon, has no distinction between matter and antimatter— experiences the same gravitational forces as matter. This is again in accordance with the theory of General Relativity, and difficult to reconcile with any theory predicting that matter and antimatter repel." If light acts the same way around antimatter, but matter doesn't act the same way around antimatter than around matter, then light going from matter to an antimatter singularity has a conundrum. How can the light act the same way with respect to the source and yet differently from the matter with respect to the antimatter singularity? The light wants to be sucked in to the singularity and the matter wants to be repelled away? I don't think it can happen that way unless the direction of the light is reversed, but that seems to make the antimatter singularity a white hole, however it also apparently rules out any light being emitted by the matter, which makes no sense. Therefor I see no reason to treat antimatter differently when it comes to an alleged bipolar quantum gravity.
#3. To: buckeye (#0)
#4. To: buckeye (#1)
From the midnight sun where the hot springs blow.
The hammer of the gods will drive our ships to new lands,
To fight the horde, singing and crying: Valhalla, I am coming!
#5. To: buckeye (#0)
#6. To: buckeye (#0)
#7. To: nobody (#6)
#8. To: buckeye (#2)
But they're gone
The winter's comin' on
Summer's almost gone
#9. To: nobody (#6)
It's simply impossible to overestimate the universe.
#10. To: nobody (#5)
This means if any antimattter out there hasn't collided with matter yet, it's probably not going to collide with it tomorrow either.
#11. To: Dakmar (#9)
#12. To: Dakmar (#10)
(Edited)
How long has the universe existed? How long, to the best of your knowledge, has plutonium existed? See a pattern here? Of course not, that was a leading question.
#13. To: nobody (#12)
#14. To: Dakmar (#13)
(Edited)
#15. To: nobody (#12)
"The aim of science is to make difficult things understandable in a simpler way; the aim of poetry is to state simple things in an incomprehensible way. The two are incompatible."
#16. To: nobody (#14)
#17. To: Dakmar (#16)
#18. To: Dakmar (#13)
I've always thought of matter/antimatter as almost godlike magnets, fiercely quarrelsome and unwilling to meet.
I've already said too much.
#19. To: MUDDOG (#18)
#20. To: nobody (#17)
Right, a tiny universe.
#21. To: buckeye (#20)
#22. To: nobody (#21)
#23. To: buckeye (#7)
In what sense are you thinking of overestimates?
#24. To: Dakmar (#13)
(Edited)
#25. To: nobody (#23)
#26. To: buckeye (#25)
#27. To: nobody (#26)
#28. To: buckeye (#25)
I doubt if the laws are different, but very likely our known laws would have to be expanded to explain the differences in phenomena.
#29. To: buckeye (#27)
#30. To: nobody (#29)
#31. To: buckeye (#30)
#32. To: buckeye (#30)
(Edited)
#33. To: buckeye (#30)
(Edited)
#34. To: buckeye (#30)
(Edited)
#35. To: buckeye (#30)
#36. To: buckeye (#30)
(Edited)
#37. To: buckeye (#30)
#38. To: buckeye (#30)
(Edited)
#39. To: buckeye (#22)
Penrose's view would tend to dispute Kurzweil's materialist singularity
#40. To: nobody (#39)
Anyway, I think the brain exploits quantum randomness and classical randomness and it ends up being significantly controlled by unpredictable circumstances, but meeting goals and satisfying needs is generally algorithmic.
#41. To: buckeye (#30)
(Edited)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest